Debates of May 15th, 2023

Question No.1383—

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

With regard to costs related to the United States President Joseph R. Biden Jr.'s visit to Ottawa in March 2023: (a) what is the total estimated cost; and (b) what is the itemized breakdown of the estimated costs?

(Return tabled)

Question No.1385—

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

With regard to the granting of government security clearances since 2016, broken down by year: (a) how many individuals (i) applied for, (ii) were denied (not as a result of retirement or resignation), security clearances; (b) of the denials in (a), how many were due to the individual spying or otherwise acting on behalf of a foreign government; and (c) what is the breakdown of (a) and (b) by department, agency, Crown corporation, or other government entity and level of clearance applied (secret or top secret)?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of Bill S-5, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, to make related amendments to the Food and Drugs Act and to repeal the Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination Act, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada Act

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, Air Transportation; the hon. member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay, Innovation, Science and Industry; and the hon. member for Nunavut, Northern Affairs.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I left off in my speech talking about a number of areas where this legislation could have gone even further to make it better. I am talking about mandatory ambient air quality measures and making sure we are protecting the right to a healthy environment.

The last area I want to mention is that, while important advances were made in this legislation to create the ability of the government to label products containing toxic substances, it falls short of the recommendation in the 2017 Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development's report that proposed providing mandatory labelling on all products containing toxic substances. I note that a consultation was launched last year to bring in new measures to have labelling. I hope this leads to more robust measures that would give individuals access to all the information they need when exposing themselves to any substance that may be toxic.

While this bill is not perfect, it makes some very important advances in the field of toxic substance management and environmental protection that are long overdue. I agree with both industry and the non-profit sector that we need to pass it as quickly as possible, since it has now been over a year since the bill was originally tabled in the Senate. Although the thought of it is giving me some PTSD, having worked on the bill for so long at committee, we should swiftly pass this legislation so we can get to the new round of amendments that our government has promised on CEPA that are long overdue for reform.

This includes the issue of ocean dumping and the rest of part 7. When the Conservatives shut down the Kitsilano Coast Guard base, it put the waters around the busiest port in the city of Vancouver at risk. That vulnerability led to a major oil spill in English Bay not getting noticed for almost 24 hours, back in 2015. While the Liberal government reopened the Kitsilano Coast Guard base to protect the waters and prevent this type of event from happening again, because of the wording of CEPA right now, the shipowner who spilled all of the bunker oil was not held liable for the damage caused. This is a clear violation of the polluter pays principle that needs to be fixed.

Most importantly, I note the environmental protection actions. Under section 22, there is the possibility of bringing in environmental protection actions to allow the public to hold the government to account for not properly investigating or responding to an alleged offence under the act. However, because of how this provision is currently written, it is not practical. This needs to be changed in future iterations of the bill.

With that, as I see my time is running out, I look forward to questions from my colleagues.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member and our committee going through all of the amendments we had to go through on Bill S-5 together. I note that he proposed some of the amendments that he brought forward at the committee. They were roundly voted down by all parties at the committee. Sometimes he had some support in some parties and sometimes he did not. However, he is going to make the perfect the enemy of the good by saying we need to do this.

This last piece of CEPA reform took 20 years, and now he is saying the minute we pass this bill, we are going to start on the new one right away. Is he proposing that his perfect is going to be taking another 20 years before it is brought into force, or would he find a different way to move it through the House?

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it absolutely should not take another 24 years for us to address other areas of the act that were not addressed. There were many areas that were out of scope in the bill, and we should be looking at them. I mentioned a couple of them in my speech. I think those should be addressed, and I am sure there are many others as well.

I hope that when this bill passes, hopefully very swiftly, we will be able to start consultations and get feedback from folks so we can start looking at amending this legislation to make sure we are addressing the areas I mentioned and other areas. I think there is a widespread understanding that those areas need to be addressed. As the member mentioned, we should not take another 24 years to get to that work.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. We are both members of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

He talked about the right to a healthy environment. Although that right has been added to the government's mission, the bill does not create a true right. In Quebec, that right was incorporated into the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms in 2007.

Does my colleague think that it is time to have the courage to open the Constitution to formally include this right in the charter?

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, our best option to protect the environment would indeed be to include this right in the Constitution. I know that would be more difficult, because it requires the support of all the provinces.

Other countries have included this right in their constitutions. I would be in favour of that. This bill will give us very good protections, but they require a very good implementation framework. I hope this process can begin shortly and we can make the necessary changes.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague mentioned at the very end the things we need to fix about this bill that were considered out of scope, and I assume that is why they were not fixed in this iteration of the bill. However, Bill S-5 was introduced as a different bill in a previous Parliament. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act has never been enforceable. People knew that. One would think this would have been the first thing to be tackled by the government when it was fixing this bill after 24 years.

I am just wondering why that did not occur to the government and why we now have to have another piece of legislation. I agree with him that we need it done as quickly as possible to make this bill enforceable. What is the point of having environmental protection if it is not enforceable?

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree. We need to reform the way that environmental protection actions are done under the bill. I do not think that means the act is not enforceable. Rather, what these actions allow us to do is hold the government to account if it is not doing its job to enforce it.

As someone who comes from an environmental law background, this is very much top of mind. I agree that it has to be one of the priorities. This issue was discussed in the report in 2016-17, when we went through it, and we have some options that were recommended and that we could move forward with.

I hope this process starts very quickly, because we want to make sure that the public has trust in the way this regime will be operating. I think this would be a really critical way of making sure that we are going to build that trust.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill S-5, the bill to amend CEPA, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. It has been in the current Parliament for far too long. It was amended in the Senate, and then we brought it back to the House of Commons; we amended it further so that it actually worked. The amendments in the Senate, in my opinion, made it a somewhat dysfunctional bill.

At the end of the day, I was happy that my colleagues from all parties got together and went through this in detail. I thank all the bureaucrats who helped us in that respect, because we had all kinds of technical questions. We recognize what we are doing here. We are parliamentarians who have backgrounds in all kinds of areas, and we are taking a look at environmental protection legislation. There is a lot of science in this, and we are turning that into legislation that lawyers are going to have to interpret so that we can actually get some results for Canadians. Thus, we can make sure they have the protection they need and that people abiding by the law have clarity about how the law affects them. This was an interesting bill to work on, and I thank all the people on all sides of the House and in the federal government who were actually helpful in moving it to this point.

Environmental protection is a core Canadian value. Canada has some of the most robust environmental protection laws in the world, yet to keep them robust, accurate and current, they have to be updated periodically. This is the intent behind Bill S-5, which seeks to significantly update and modernize the Canadian Environmental Protection Act for the first time since it was passed in 1999. As my colleague iterated, this was 24 years ago.

Bill S-5 would do many things. It would recognize that every Canadian has the right to a healthy environment; that right may be balanced with social, economic, health and scientific factors. It would require the Government of Canada to protect this right, which is something that we strongly support.

The bill would put language into the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to highlight the government's commitment to implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It would distinguish between, on the one hand, regulated toxic substances that pose the highest risks to health and the environment and, on the other hand, those that have a lower risk but should still be regulated. It also recognizes the importance of considering vulnerable populations when assessing the toxicity of a substance, as well as the importance of minimizing risks posed by exposure to such toxic substances.

The nub of what we debated ad nauseam at committee was the whole issue around the two lists, because there are now two lists, of toxic substances. We wanted to make sure that we got this right. There are thousands of so-called toxic substances in Canada. Canadians would be bewildered to find that the plastic they use in their kitchen is considered a toxic substance. This delineation of lists is to make sure that the actual toxic substances that need to be regulated, monitored and reduced in the environment, and some completely done away with, are listed on one scale; those that are used for other purposes, as long as they are used effectively, are on a lower scale. That is effectively the major change we looked at here in making sure that we are addressing getting rid of the real toxic substances and getting them out of the environment for Canadians.

In more pragmatic terms, the bill would give the government the proper tools to regulate such substances to protect people's health while considering all the necessary factors. This would include a plan of chemicals management priorities that assesses substances and involves consultation with stakeholders and affected groups. It would also remove redundancy in regulations by mandating that only one federal government department would regulate the same chemical substance and that the most appropriate department be the one to do so.

The next part is key. This bill is supported by virtually all stakeholders, and the essence of what it would do is to reduce red tape in many ways. As a matter of experience, I know that cumbersome and outdated regulatory requirements greatly hinder the ability of Canadian businesses to deliver goods and services to Canadians. One process that we look at here is the whole single assessment regime to assess both the environmental risks and health risks of drugs. Now, it would be the Minister of Health who looks at both of those, as opposed to the two regimes that it had to go through before. Now it would go through one process in the federal government.

The bill responds to 35 recommendations that were put forward here and finalized in a 2018 report to Parliament. Bill S-5 would ease the bureaucratic burden on our economy without compromising on Canada's strong commitment to protecting its environment, which is something we strongly support.

When it was received by the House, this bill suffered from many flaws. For instance, it contained unclear language surrounding the right to a healthy environment. It tampered with the agreed-upon definition of the “precautionary principle”, which is an internationally recognized concept. It introduced new terms that are not clearly defined and would have caused uncertainty with regard to their enforcement.

I have heard some of my colleagues' debate. My colleague from West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country talked about 15,000 deaths a year as a result of combustion in the air. Combustion in the air has always been a problem, but we try to square that in society with why our life expectancy keeps going up if 15,000 people are perishing because of combustion in the air.

We know that, when we burn things, including trees and fields, that combustion going into our lungs has an effect and affects our lives at the end of the day. However, we have consistently gotten better in this throughout the world, primarily in Canada, where we have been dealing with it for a long time. This repetition of one-sided narratives does not move the proper debate forward. I will say that again: This repetition of misinformation does not move the actual debate forward on how we solve problems in Canada.

We need to recognize that it takes time for stakeholders to agree on a common understanding of new terms. It is not as simple as looking up definitions in the dictionary. Legal interpretations are more diverse as we go through this process. It is important, in Parliament, to make sure we define what we mean with each of these terms. That is one of the weaknesses I have seen in many of these legislative proposals that have come forward. They leave it open for the courts to interpret these terms going forward, as opposed to us, as parliamentarians, giving them that definition of what we are talking about before we actually make the legislation.

I know I had some support on that from some of my colleagues in other parties, and I really appreciate that. It is also important to understand that regulatory uncertainty is detrimental to all parties involved. Like red tape, it greatly hinders the ability of Canadian businesses to deliver goods and services to Canadians. Thankfully, my colleagues on the environment committee and I worked collaboratively to address those issues to produce the version of Bill S-5 that we are now discussing today, a version that I believe all parties in this House can agree upon.

Unfortunately, the government acted in total disregard of the work done by this committee by introducing changes to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act in its most recent budget implementation act. I will go through that. For reasons that are not clear, the budget implementation act introduced an account referred to as the “environmental economic instruments fund”, as well as playing with semantics by replacing references to “tradeable units” with “compliance units”. If I did not know any better, I would dismiss this as a mere change in bureaucratic arrangements and terminology, but my two-decade-long career in the financial sector has taught me much better. It is apparent to me that the new fund established in this amendment is being set up as a credit-trading mechanism for carbon offsets, to be overseen and distributed by the Minister of Environment.

Changing terminology throughout the act is an attempt to get around jurisprudence on jurisdictional oversight. It is currently understood that “tradeable units” would be under provincial jurisdiction. The alternative use of the term “compliance units” would circumvent that optically, but function in the exact same way. For instance, Alberta's technology innovation and emissions reduction pricing for carbon could be usurped by the federal Minister of Environment with this change. I will note that the TIER program in Alberta is the first and best output-based pricing system in Canada; it has reduced carbon more significantly than any other province or any other industry in Canada as a result of its efficiency.

In short, this change to CEPA allows the federal government unilateral authority across jurisdictions. This is not in the bill amendment we have but in the budget implementation act. Therefore, it is trying to slide in with an omnibus bill along with something that has nothing to do with CEPA. Our provincial governments are going to be aware of this, and the new language is a change meant to usurp their regulatory authority.

Is the country going to see more challenges to federal jurisdictional overstepping as a result of this? This is something that will be before the Supreme Court of Canada. I am cautioning that this is not the right step forward. We should pass this bill and move forward quickly.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order.

I notice my friend forgot to mention that today is May 15. I know that today is May 15 because I was given the greatest gift of life 10 years ago today. My oldest son was born. I want to wish him a very happy birthday.

Happy birthday to Nickson. His dad loves and misses him.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

That is not a point of order, but happy birthday to Nickson.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Guelph.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member across the way and I had many discussions on this in our environment committee. One area we discussed was the review mechanism, first taking a risk-based approach and then having an annual review process so that we could look at how well the act is working. Could the hon. member comment on the need for regular review of the work we have done together?

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is a member I work very well with on the other side of the House. He approaches issues scientifically, and I really appreciate the facts we put on the table together.

A regular review of these issues is already in CEPA. There are regular reviews of things like the biofuels act. However, it has taken years to even do a review of this. Asking the government, in its manifold applications, to go through a process of doing another annual review when it is not doing the annual or biannual reviews in the act already would be throwing on more bureaucracy.

Review of our legislation is important. With the many issues already not being met by the government, how we are going to get to it is a riddle to me. Unless we are going to throw a whole bunch more government wide open here and double down on parliamentarians and bureaucrats, I am not sure how it would actually happen.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will also salute my colleague. We work together on the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

The Senate proposed a number of amendments to the bill regarding pollution prevention. To my utter dismay, the Liberals and Conservatives voted against those amendments.

It is often said that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, whether we are talking about health or not. Should the same thing not apply to the environment?

Planning for pollution would enable us to prevent disease.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. As I said, a little bit of prevention is better than doing the opposite. I think the committee study paved the way for solutions allowing us to do what is best for all Canadians, all industries and all those affected by the bill.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we know all about the need for the precautionary principle in mining communities, because we heard about “trust industry” and how we could not move too quickly or jump to conclusions for decades.

Our graveyards are full of dead young men. If one walks into graveyards in Timmins or Kirkland Lake, one will see that up to 1955, the average life of an immigrant miner was 41 years old. They died of silicosis, radon and radiation; later, they died from the diesel underground. They died from stomach cancers from the oils that were on the drills.

All the time, we were told, “We don't know how to prove this.” The way it was proven was with something called the widow's project. They went door to door to meet the widows to find out what happened in those stopes, all while industry said to trust it and that everything was fine. The precautionary principle has been paid in the lifeblood of workers and of Canadians.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague that we need to protect the lives of workers across Canada first and foremost. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act should be protecting those work sites as much as it can.

I will point out as well that the number one site for reclamation in Canada right now is the Giant Mine in Northwest Territories, which is overseen by federal jurisdiction. It is going to cost the federal government $4 billion in order to fix the pollution at that mine at this point in time. This is a failure of regulatory oversight. It is a failure for the environment, and it is a failure we cannot continue to make in Canada. Going forward, it is essential to this country to hold officials accountable for the outcomes affecting our environment, the lives of our workers and the people affected by that environment.